Discussion:
sturgeon's scotch covid deaths rise by 25% in a week
Add Reply
abelard
2020-07-29 11:22:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
from 8 to 10
Paul Elam
2020-07-29 12:24:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
abelard
2020-07-29 12:35:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:24:54 +0100, Paul Elam
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
try looking it up instead of ranting your sowflake ignorance
JNugent
2020-07-29 13:34:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:24:54 +0100, Paul Elam
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
try looking it up instead of ranting your sowflake ignorance
"sowflake"?

I can't work out whether that's a genuine typo or an oblique reference
to a certain Scots / Scottish / Scotch politician.
abelard
2020-07-29 14:01:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 14:34:18 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:24:54 +0100, Paul Elam
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
try looking it up instead of ranting your sowflake ignorance
"sowflake"?
I can't work out whether that's a genuine typo or an oblique reference
to a certain Scots / Scottish / Scotch politician.
and i'm not speaking!
Keema's Nan
2020-07-29 15:02:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 14:34:18 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:24:54 +0100, Paul Elam
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
try looking it up instead of ranting your sowflake ignorance
"sowflake"?
I can't work out whether that's a genuine typo or an oblique reference
to a certain Scots / Scottish / Scotch politician.
and i'm not speaking!
Is that a medical problem, or are you under orders?
Vidcapper
2020-07-30 07:50:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by abelard
On Wed, 29 Jul 2020 13:24:54 +0100, Paul Elam
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
try looking it up instead of ranting your sowflake ignorance
"sowflake"?
I can't work out whether that's a genuine typo or an oblique reference
to a certain Scots / Scottish / Scotch politician.
If it's a typo, it's an appropriate one. :P
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
Keema's Nan
2020-07-29 13:17:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
Is it?

Is it drunk in Scotchland, by Scotch people wearing pleated skirts and eating
deep fried shortbread?

Are they the same people who believe they can insult the English 24/7, but
the slightest hint of the boot being on the other foot and they are whining
like baggypips?
Incubus
2020-07-29 13:41:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
As a noun it is, although one should note that it is a shortened form of
"Scotch whiskey". "Scotch" is also, and originally, an adjective that is an
alternative word for "Scottish", whence the name of the drink originally was
derived.
JNugent
2020-07-29 15:12:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
As a noun it is, although one should note that it is a shortened form of
"Scotch whiskey". "Scotch" is also, and originally, an adjective that is an
alternative word for "Scottish", whence the name of the drink originally was
derived.
I'm sure that "Scotch" is itself of Scottish origins. I have heard of it
being used as a reference to particular dialects of English as used in
Scotland.
RH156RH
2020-08-01 06:39:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Incubus
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
As a noun it is, although one should note that it is a shortened form of
"Scotch whiskey". "Scotch" is also, and originally, an adjective that is an
alternative word for "Scottish", whence the name of the drink originally was
derived.
I'm sure that "Scotch" is itself of Scottish origins. I have heard of it
being used as a reference to particular dialects of English as used in
Scotland.
https://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/scotch-the-ban-on-scotch/


Scotch the ban on Scotch
Robert Henderson
The reluctance of the native inhabitants of Scotland to accept descriptions of themselves as Scotch or the use Scotch as an adjective except in a limited number of cases is a modern affectation. The celebrated lexicographer R W Burchfield has some interesting things to say on this topic:

“Scotch. Scots, Scottish. It is not possible to set down here all the complications of this somewhat sensitive group of words. The adjective Scotch, in origin a contracted variant of Scottish, ‘had been adopted into the northern vernacular before the end of the 18th c.; it [was] used regularly by Burns, and subsequently by Scott’ (OED). But ‘since the mid-19th c. there has been in Scotland a growing tendency to discard the form altogether, Scottish, or less frequently Scots, being substituted’ (OED). Scots is also a long-standing variant of Scottish. The outcome is that all three adjectives are still current, but Scotch is the least frequent and survives mainly in certain collocations, e.g. Scotch broth, Scotch egg, Scotch mist, Scotch terrier, Scotch tweed, Scotch whisky, and a few others. Scots is the term regularly used of the form of English spoken in (esp. Lowlands) Scotland. It also occurs in the names of certain Scottish regiments. But the all-embracing general adjective meaning ‘of or relating to Scotland, its history, its day-to-day life, or its inhabitants’, is Scottish. These are middle-class preferences. ‘Paradoxically,’ A.J. Aitken reports in OCELang. (1992),’for working class Scots the common form has long been Scotch … and the native form Scots is sometimes regarded as an Anglicized affectation.’ Outside Scotland, and esp. outside the UK, Scottish preferences are less well-known. Scotch is likely to occur, both as adj. and noun, in contexts which middle-class Scots would regard as either droll or improper.” R W BURCHFIELD (ed.): Fowler’s Modern English Usage. 3rd ed, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1996. ISBN: 0 19 869136 2.

The use of Scotch as noun and adjective was not limited to such luminaries as Burns and Scott (David Hume, Boswell and Adam Smith can be added to the list) but was widely used by all classes until quite recently. I have been visiting Scotland since the 1950s and can vouch for the fact that until the past thirty years or so Scotch was still being used frequently as no more than a synonym for Scots or Scottish. The fact that Scotch is still used for Scotch mist, Scotch terriers and so on is in itself a firm proof of the ubiquity of the word in the past because had it not been commonly used it would not have attached itself to so many mundane items.

The fact that the Scotch or Scots now try to insist on being called only Scots is a symptom of victimhood which is itself a form of inferiority. Peoples who are confident in their existence do not try to insist on foreigners calling them one thing when the foreigners have always called them something else. (This is a trait most starkly seen in the case of blacks: in the past 70 years the polite term for this group has undergone the following transformation: negro-coloured-black-afro-American-Afro-Caribbean-African.)

The English have traditionally called the natives of Scotland Scotch. They should continue to do so, just as they should refer to Bombay as Bombay and Burma as Burma. The renaming of things, places and peoples is the habit of the totalitarian not the free society.

A people have the right to call themselves what they wish: they do not have the right or power to enforce it on others. For foreigners to allow themselves to be coerced or manipulated into using a term not natural to themselves is bend the cultural knee to the demanding
Keema's Nan
2020-08-01 08:55:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by RH156RH
Post by JNugent
Post by Incubus
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
As a noun it is, although one should note that it is a shortened form of
"Scotch whiskey". "Scotch" is also, and originally, an adjective that is an
alternative word for "Scottish", whence the name of the drink originally was
derived.
I'm sure that "Scotch" is itself of Scottish origins. I have heard of it
being used as a reference to particular dialects of English as used in
Scotland.
https://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/scotch-the-ban-on-scotch/
Scotch the ban on Scotch
Robert Henderson
The reluctance of the native inhabitants of Scotland to accept descriptions
of themselves as Scotch or the use Scotch as an adjective except in a limited
number of cases is a modern affectation. The celebrated lexicographer R W
“Scotch. Scots, Scottish. It is not possible to set down here all the
complications of this somewhat sensitive group of words. The adjective
Scotch, in origin a contracted variant of Scottish, ‘had been adopted into
the northern vernacular before the end of the 18th c.; it [was] used
regularly by Burns, and subsequently by Scott’ (OED). But ‘since the
mid-19th c. there has been in Scotland a growing tendency to discard the form
altogether, Scottish, or less frequently Scots, being substituted’ (OED).
Scots is also a long-standing variant of Scottish. The outcome is that all
three adjectives are still current, but Scotch is the least frequent and
survives mainly in certain collocations, e.g. Scotch broth, Scotch egg,
Scotch mist, Scotch terrier, Scotch tweed, Scotch whisky, and a few others.
Scots is the term regularly used of the form of English spoken in (esp.
Lowlands) Scotland. It also occurs in the names of certain Scottish
regiments. But the all-embracing general adjective meaning ‘of or relating
to Scotland, its history, its day-to-day life, or its inhabitants’, is
Scottish. These are middle-class preferences. ‘Paradoxically,’ A.J.
Aitken reports in OCELang. (1992),’for working class Scots the common form
has long been Scotch … and the native form Scots is sometimes regarded as
an Anglicized affectation.’ Outside Scotland, and esp. outside the UK,
Scottish preferences are less well-known. Scotch is likely to occur, both as
adj. and noun, in contexts which middle-class Scots would regard as either
droll or improper.” R W BURCHFIELD (ed.): Fowler’s Modern English Usage.
3rd ed, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1996. ISBN: 0 19 869136 2.
The use of Scotch as noun and adjective was not limited to such luminaries as
Burns and Scott (David Hume, Boswell and Adam Smith can be added to the list)
but was widely used by all classes until quite recently. I have been visiting
Scotland since the 1950s and can vouch for the fact that until the past
thirty years or so Scotch was still being used frequently as no more than a
synonym for Scots or Scottish. The fact that Scotch is still used for Scotch
mist, Scotch terriers and so on is in itself a firm proof of the ubiquity of
the word in the past because had it not been commonly used it would not have
attached itself to so many mundane items.
The fact that the Scotch or Scots now try to insist on being called only
Scots is a symptom of victimhood which is itself a form of inferiority.
Peoples who are confident in their existence do not try to insist on
foreigners calling them one thing when the foreigners have always called them
something else. (This is a trait most starkly seen in the case of blacks: in
the past 70 years the polite term for this group has undergone the following
transformation: negro-coloured-black-afro-American-Afro-Caribbean-African.)
The English have traditionally called the natives of Scotland Scotch. They
should continue to do so, just as they should refer to Bombay as Bombay and
Burma as Burma. The renaming of things, places and peoples is the habit of
the totalitarian not the free society.
A people have the right to call themselves what they wish: they do not have
the right or power to enforce it on others. For foreigners to allow
themselves to be coerced or manipulated into using a term not natural to
themselves is bend the cultural knee to the demanding
Excellent. Thanks very much.
JNugent
2020-08-01 13:29:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by RH156RH
Post by JNugent
Post by Incubus
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
As a noun it is, although one should note that it is a shortened form of
"Scotch whiskey". "Scotch" is also, and originally, an adjective that is an
alternative word for "Scottish", whence the name of the drink originally was
derived.
I'm sure that "Scotch" is itself of Scottish origins. I have heard of it
being used as a reference to particular dialects of English as used in
Scotland.
https://englandcalling.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/scotch-the-ban-on-scotch/
Scotch the ban on Scotch
Robert Henderson
The reluctance of the native inhabitants of Scotland to accept descriptions
of themselves as Scotch or the use Scotch as an adjective except in a limited
number of cases is a modern affectation. The celebrated lexicographer R W
“Scotch. Scots, Scottish. It is not possible to set down here all the
complications of this somewhat sensitive group of words. The adjective
Scotch, in origin a contracted variant of Scottish, ‘had been adopted into
the northern vernacular before the end of the 18th c.; it [was] used
regularly by Burns, and subsequently by Scott’ (OED). But ‘since the
mid-19th c. there has been in Scotland a growing tendency to discard the form
altogether, Scottish, or less frequently Scots, being substituted’ (OED).
Scots is also a long-standing variant of Scottish. The outcome is that all
three adjectives are still current, but Scotch is the least frequent and
survives mainly in certain collocations, e.g. Scotch broth, Scotch egg,
Scotch mist, Scotch terrier, Scotch tweed, Scotch whisky, and a few others.
Scots is the term regularly used of the form of English spoken in (esp.
Lowlands) Scotland. It also occurs in the names of certain Scottish
regiments. But the all-embracing general adjective meaning ‘of or relating
to Scotland, its history, its day-to-day life, or its inhabitants’, is
Scottish. These are middle-class preferences. ‘Paradoxically,’ A.J.
Aitken reports in OCELang. (1992),’for working class Scots the common form
has long been Scotch … and the native form Scots is sometimes regarded as
an Anglicized affectation.’ Outside Scotland, and esp. outside the UK,
Scottish preferences are less well-known. Scotch is likely to occur, both as
adj. and noun, in contexts which middle-class Scots would regard as either
droll or improper.” R W BURCHFIELD (ed.): Fowler’s Modern English Usage.
3rd ed, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1996. ISBN: 0 19 869136 2.
The use of Scotch as noun and adjective was not limited to such luminaries as
Burns and Scott (David Hume, Boswell and Adam Smith can be added to the list)
but was widely used by all classes until quite recently. I have been visiting
Scotland since the 1950s and can vouch for the fact that until the past
thirty years or so Scotch was still being used frequently as no more than a
synonym for Scots or Scottish. The fact that Scotch is still used for Scotch
mist, Scotch terriers and so on is in itself a firm proof of the ubiquity of
the word in the past because had it not been commonly used it would not have
attached itself to so many mundane items.
The fact that the Scotch or Scots now try to insist on being called only
Scots is a symptom of victimhood which is itself a form of inferiority.
Peoples who are confident in their existence do not try to insist on
foreigners calling them one thing when the foreigners have always called them
something else. (This is a trait most starkly seen in the case of blacks: in
the past 70 years the polite term for this group has undergone the following
transformation: negro-coloured-black-afro-American-Afro-Caribbean-African.)
The English have traditionally called the natives of Scotland Scotch. They
should continue to do so, just as they should refer to Bombay as Bombay and
Burma as Burma. The renaming of things, places and peoples is the habit of
the totalitarian not the free society.
A people have the right to call themselves what they wish: they do not have
the right or power to enforce it on others. For foreigners to allow
themselves to be coerced or manipulated into using a term not natural to
themselves is bend the cultural knee to the demanding
Excellent. Thanks very much.
I cannot disagree.

We don't call Germany "Deutschland" or Spain "España".
Keema's Nan
2020-07-29 15:41:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
As a noun it is, although one should note that it is a shortened form of
"Scotch whiskey". "Scotch" is also, and originally, an adjective that is an
alternative word for "Scottish", whence the name of the drink originally was
derived.
Have you typed Scotch Whiskey on purpose just to wind up the no underpants
brigade?

Or had you not realised that the word with an ‘e’ in it is used for Irish
Whiskey?

The Scotch stuff is just Whisky, although anyone who drinks that blended
bollocks deserves to get a boot up the trossachs. Although I don’t profess
to sampling more than a small percentage of malts, I do have a taste for
Laphroaig.
Pamela
2020-07-30 17:48:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
As a noun it is, although one should note that it is a shortened form
of "Scotch whiskey". "Scotch" is also, and originally, an adjective
that is an alternative word for "Scottish", whence the name of the
drink originally was derived.
Have you typed Scotch Whiskey on purpose just to wind up the no
underpants brigade?
Or had you not realised that the word with an "e" in it is used for
Irish Whiskey?
The Scotch stuff is just Whisky, although anyone who drinks that blended
bollocks deserves to get a boot up the trossachs. Although I don't
profess to sampling more than a small percentage of malts, I do have a
taste for Laphroaig.
Does anyone really and truly like whisky? It tastes horrible and fiery to me.
Keema's Nan
2020-07-30 18:01:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
As a noun it is, although one should note that it is a shortened form
of "Scotch whiskey". "Scotch" is also, and originally, an adjective
that is an alternative word for "Scottish", whence the name of the
d rink originally was derived.
Have you typed Scotch Whiskey on purpose just to wind up the no
underpants brigade?
Or had you not realised that the word with an "e" in it is used for
Irish Whiskey?
The Scotch stuff is just Whisky, although anyone who drinks that blended
bollocks deserves to get a boot up the trossachs. Although I don't
profess to sampling more than a small percentage of malts, I do have a
taste for Laphroaig.
Does anyone really and truly like whisky? It tastes horrible and fiery to me.
I can’t comment, or Rowing will add the details to his little book of other
peoples’ personal failings.
JNugent
2020-07-30 23:54:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
As a noun it is, although one should note that it is a shortened form
of "Scotch whiskey". "Scotch" is also, and originally, an adjective
that is an alternative word for "Scottish", whence the name of the
drink originally was derived.
Have you typed Scotch Whiskey on purpose just to wind up the no
underpants brigade?
Or had you not realised that the word with an "e" in it is used for
Irish Whiskey?
The Scotch stuff is just Whisky, although anyone who drinks that blended
bollocks deserves to get a boot up the trossachs. Although I don't
profess to sampling more than a small percentage of malts, I do have a
taste for Laphroaig.
Does anyone really and truly like whisky? It tastes horrible and fiery to me.
Hear, hear.

The favourite has long been rum for me, though in recent years I have
rather taken to JD and Jim Beam.
Ian Jackson
2020-07-31 07:32:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
As a noun it is, although one should note that it is a shortened form
of "Scotch whiskey". "Scotch" is also, and originally, an adjective
that is an alternative word for "Scottish", whence the name of the
drink originally was derived.
Have you typed Scotch Whiskey on purpose just to wind up the no
underpants brigade?
Or had you not realised that the word with an "e" in it is used for
Irish Whiskey?
The Scotch stuff is just Whisky, although anyone who drinks that blended
bollocks deserves to get a boot up the trossachs. Although I don't
profess to sampling more than a small percentage of malts, I do have a
taste for Laphroaig.
Does anyone really and truly like whisky? It tastes horrible and fiery to me.
Hear, hear.
The favourite has long been rum for me, though in recent years I have
rather taken to JD and Jim Beam.
As I child, I loved port, sherry and sweet wine. I found beer revolting.
Later, as I grew up, I progressed to alcoholic cider, and larger & lime.
Then sweet stout & cider (50/50 mix). I was around 25 that I eventually
got the hang of pale ale, then beer.

It was only after someone suggested I dip a stick of sugar into a glass
of whisky, and suck it, that I got the hang of spirits. I now like
whisky - but I definitely prefer the sweeter brands, which are Irish and
American. The most horrible whisky I ever had was a much-vaunted (and
highly-valued) highly-peated single malt (Talisker?).
--
Ian
Joe
2020-07-31 09:56:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 08:32:27 +0100
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
As a noun it is, although one should note that it is a shortened
form of "Scotch whiskey". "Scotch" is also, and originally, an
adjective that is an alternative word for "Scottish", whence the
name of the drink originally was derived.
Have you typed Scotch Whiskey on purpose just to wind up the no
underpants brigade?
Or had you not realised that the word with an "e" in it is used
for Irish Whiskey?
The Scotch stuff is just Whisky, although anyone who drinks that
blended bollocks deserves to get a boot up the trossachs.
Although I don't profess to sampling more than a small percentage
of malts, I do have a taste for Laphroaig.
Does anyone really and truly like whisky? It tastes horrible and fiery to me.
Hear, hear.
The favourite has long been rum for me, though in recent years I
have rather taken to JD and Jim Beam.
As I child, I loved port, sherry and sweet wine. I found beer
revolting. Later, as I grew up, I progressed to alcoholic cider, and
larger & lime. Then sweet stout & cider (50/50 mix). I was around 25
that I eventually got the hang of pale ale, then beer.
It was only after someone suggested I dip a stick of sugar into a
glass of whisky, and suck it, that I got the hang of spirits. I now
like whisky - but I definitely prefer the sweeter brands, which are
Irish and American. The most horrible whisky I ever had was a
much-vaunted (and highly-valued) highly-peated single malt
(Talisker?).
Laphroaig is also strongly peaty, as I recall. There are a few blends
that are reasonably good, such as Teachers and Famous Grouse. I still
have a sweet tooth, but oddly, my drink of choice is the more extremely
bitter of unpasteurised bitters. My favourite at the moment is
Thornbridge Jaipur (it's an IPA, an India Pale Ale), occasionally
available in Wetherspoons. I also like port, but prefer the less-sweet
tawny to the ruby.
--
Joe
abelard
2020-07-31 12:58:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Fri, 31 Jul 2020 08:32:27 +0100, Ian Jackson
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
As a noun it is, although one should note that it is a shortened form
of "Scotch whiskey". "Scotch" is also, and originally, an adjective
that is an alternative word for "Scottish", whence the name of the
drink originally was derived.
Have you typed Scotch Whiskey on purpose just to wind up the no
underpants brigade?
Or had you not realised that the word with an "e" in it is used for
Irish Whiskey?
The Scotch stuff is just Whisky, although anyone who drinks that blended
bollocks deserves to get a boot up the trossachs. Although I don't
profess to sampling more than a small percentage of malts, I do have a
taste for Laphroaig.
Does anyone really and truly like whisky? It tastes horrible and fiery to me.
Hear, hear.
The favourite has long been rum for me, though in recent years I have
rather taken to JD and Jim Beam.
As I child, I loved port, sherry and sweet wine. I found beer revolting.
Later, as I grew up, I progressed to alcoholic cider, and larger & lime.
Then sweet stout & cider (50/50 mix). I was around 25 that I eventually
got the hang of pale ale, then beer.
It was only after someone suggested I dip a stick of sugar into a glass
of whisky, and suck it, that I got the hang of spirits. I now like
whisky - but I definitely prefer the sweeter brands, which are Irish and
American. The most horrible whisky I ever had was a much-vaunted (and
highly-valued) highly-peated single malt (Talisker?).
just give it a few more years!
Andy Walker
2020-07-31 20:12:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[...] The most horrible whisky I ever had was a
much-vaunted (and highly-valued) highly-peated single malt
(Talisker?).
Talisker is not highly peated, though it is much vaunted. You
may be thinking of Laphroaig, the marmite of whiskies? The other thing
to beware when drinking any whisky is the strength. There is a sort-of
assumption by some that the stronger the better. In reality, if it's
too strong, then it indeed tastes horrible. It needs to be watered
down, and stronger versions need to be watered down more [which also
makes the cost more reasonable!]. After that, you need to experiment.
But whisky [and whiskey] snobs are as annoying as wine snobs; don't
let other people tell you what to like!
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Keema's Nan
2020-07-31 20:59:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[...] The most horrible whisky I ever had was a
much-vaunted (and highly-valued) highly-peated single malt
(Talisker?).
Talisker is not highly peated, though it is much vaunted. You
may be thinking of Laphroaig, the marmite of whiskies? The other thing
to beware when drinking any whisky is the strength. There is a sort-of
assumption by some that the stronger the better. In reality, if it's
too strong, then it indeed tastes horrible. It needs to be watered
down, and stronger versions need to be watered down more [which also
makes the cost more reasonable!]. After that, you need to experiment.
But whisky [and whiskey] snobs are as annoying as wine snobs;
They are not as annoying as car snobs.
don't
let other people tell you what to like!
Incubus
2020-08-01 13:16:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
[...] The most horrible whisky I ever had was a
much-vaunted (and highly-valued) highly-peated single malt
(Talisker?).
Talisker is not highly peated, though it is much vaunted. You
may be thinking of Laphroaig, the marmite of whiskies? The other thing
to beware when drinking any whisky is the strength. There is a sort-of
assumption by some that the stronger the better. In reality, if it's
too strong, then it indeed tastes horrible. It needs to be watered
down, and stronger versions need to be watered down more [which also
makes the cost more reasonable!]. After that, you need to experiment.
But whisky [and whiskey] snobs are as annoying as wine snobs;
They are not as annoying as car snobs.
Camera snobs are starting to irritate me but cyclists are still the worst.
Keema's Nan
2020-08-01 14:32:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Keema's Nan
[...] The most horrible whisky I ever had was a
much-vaunted (and highly-valued) highly-peated single malt
(Talisker?).
Talisker is not highly peated, though it is much vaunted. You
may be thinking of Laphroaig, the marmite of whiskies? The other thing
to beware when drinking any whisky is the strength. There is a sort-of
assumption by some that the stronger the better. In reality, if it's
too strong, then it indeed tastes horrible. It needs to be watered
down, and stronger versions need to be watered down more [which also
makes the cost more reasonable!]. After that, you need to experiment.
But whisky [and whiskey] snobs are as annoying as wine snobs;
They are not as annoying as car snobs.
Camera snobs are starting to irritate me but cyclists are still the worst.
Camera snobs have been around for ages. I remember buying an OM1 and almost
everyone assured me the Canon equivalent was the *only* one to have if I
wanted to take photography seriously.(Although those taking it really
seriously seemed to have a Hasselblad).

I loved the Olympus, and when I saw Canon images I thought the auto settings
were slightly underexposing everything; but I kept very quiet to prevent my
lynching.Mind you, I had no real idea which film they were using, but assumed
Ektachrome Professional, because... well just because.
Incubus
2020-08-01 16:27:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Keema's Nan
[...] The most horrible whisky I ever had was a
much-vaunted (and highly-valued) highly-peated single malt
(Talisker?).
Talisker is not highly peated, though it is much vaunted. You
may be thinking of Laphroaig, the marmite of whiskies? The other thing
to beware when drinking any whisky is the strength. There is a sort-of
assumption by some that the stronger the better. In reality, if it's
too strong, then it indeed tastes horrible. It needs to be watered
down, and stronger versions need to be watered down more [which also
makes the cost more reasonable!]. After that, you need to experiment.
But whisky [and whiskey] snobs are as annoying as wine snobs;
They are not as annoying as car snobs.
Camera snobs are starting to irritate me but cyclists are still the worst.
Camera snobs have been around for ages. I remember buying an OM1 and almost
everyone assured me the Canon equivalent was the *only* one to have if I
wanted to take photography seriously.(Although those taking it really
seriously seemed to have a Hasselblad).
They were talking nonsense. You should have bought Nikon.
Post by Keema's Nan
I loved the Olympus, and when I saw Canon images I thought the auto settings
were slightly underexposing everything; but I kept very quiet to prevent my
lynching.Mind you, I had no real idea which film they were using, but assumed
Ektachrome Professional, because... well just because.
They still make Ektachrome.
Keema's Nan
2020-08-01 17:08:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Keema's Nan
[...] The most horrible whisky I ever had was a
much-vaunted (and highly-valued) highly-peated single malt
(Talisker?).
Talisker is not highly peated, though it is much vaunted. You
may be thinking of Laphroaig, the marmite of whiskies? The other thing
to beware when drinking any whisky is the strength. There is a sort-of
assumption by some that the stronger the better. In reality, if it's
too strong, then it indeed tastes horrible. It needs to be watered
down, and stronger versions need to be watered down more [which also
makes the cost more reasonable!]. After that, you need to experiment.
But whisky [and whiskey] snobs are as annoying as wine snobs;
They are not as annoying as car snobs.
Camera snobs are starting to irritate me but cyclists are still the worst.
Camera snobs have been around for ages. I remember buying an OM1 and almost
everyone assured me the Canon equivalent was the *only* one to have if I
wanted to take photography seriously.(Although those taking it really
seriously seemed to have a Hasselblad).
They were talking nonsense. You should have bought Nikon.
My reasons for buying an Olympus were supremely *technical*. David Bailey
advertised them and I thought he was cool.
Post by Keema's Nan
I loved the Olympus, and when I saw Canon images I thought the auto settings
were slightly underexposing everything; but I kept very quiet to prevent my
lynching.Mind you, I had no real idea which film they were using, but assumed
Ektachrome Professional, because... well just because.
They still make Ektachrome.
Incubus
2020-08-03 09:12:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Keema's Nan
[...] The most horrible whisky I ever had was a
much-vaunted (and highly-valued) highly-peated single malt
(Talisker?).
Talisker is not highly peated, though it is much vaunted. You
may be thinking of Laphroaig, the marmite of whiskies? The other thing
to beware when drinking any whisky is the strength. There is a sort-of
assumption by some that the stronger the better. In reality, if it's
too strong, then it indeed tastes horrible. It needs to be watered
down, and stronger versions need to be watered down more [which also
makes the cost more reasonable!]. After that, you need to experiment.
But whisky [and whiskey] snobs are as annoying as wine snobs;
They are not as annoying as car snobs.
Camera snobs are starting to irritate me but cyclists are still the worst.
Camera snobs have been around for ages. I remember buying an OM1 and almost
everyone assured me the Canon equivalent was the *only* one to have if I
wanted to take photography seriously.(Although those taking it really
seriously seemed to have a Hasselblad).
They were talking nonsense. You should have bought Nikon.
My reasons for buying an Olympus were supremely *technical*. David Bailey
advertised them and I thought he was cool.
Did he actually use them or was he just endorsing them? I remember seeing
advertisements of my favourite guitarists endorsing certain brands of equipment
but when I saw them live, they were using something else entirely.

I had a look at the OM-1 and it looks like an impressive camera for its time.
The main drawback with Olympus is that I'm not convinced the lenses are as
good.
Keema's Nan
2020-08-03 11:44:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Incubus
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Keema's Nan
[...] The most horrible whisky I ever had was a
much-vaunted (and highly-valued) highly-peated single malt
(Talisker?).
Talisker is not highly peated, though it is much vaunted. You
may be thinking of Laphroaig, the marmite of whiskies? The other thing
to beware when drinking any whisky is the strength. There is a sort-of
assumption by some that the stronger the better. In reality, if it's
too strong, then it indeed tastes horrible. It needs to be watered
down, and stronger versions need to be watered down more [which also
makes the cost more reasonable!]. After that, you need to experiment.
But whisky [and whiskey] snobs are as annoying as wine snobs;
They are not as annoying as car snobs.
Camera snobs are starting to irritate me but cyclists are still the worst.
Camera snobs have been around for ages. I remember buying an OM1 and almost
everyone assured me the Canon equivalent was the *only* one to have if I
wanted to take photography seriously.(Although those taking it really
seriously seemed to have a Hasselblad).
They were talking nonsense. You should have bought Nikon.
My reasons for buying an Olympus were supremely *technical*. David Bailey
advertised them and I thought he was cool.
Did he actually use them or was he just endorsing them?
A good question.

In the adverts they gave the impression he was using them, but I was too
young and easily influenced to see through the spin.
Post by Incubus
I remember seeing
advertisements of my favourite guitarists endorsing certain brands of equipment
but when I saw them live, they were using something else entirely.
Some of the bands I saw, the lead guitarist appeared to have many guitars to
choose from, and each was probably tuned to a different key which made
various songs easy to play.
Post by Incubus
I had a look at the OM-1 and it looks like an impressive camera for its time.
The main drawback with Olympus is that I'm not convinced the lenses are as
good.
The problem for me (although it was a bonus at the time) was once I had an
Olympus, the lenses were interchangeable between models and so buying another
Olympus body made sense at a later date.

The Zuicko lenses seemed to have a good write-up at the time, and were
certainly far better than the old Zenit I had used previously.

Pancho
2020-07-31 23:06:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[...] The most horrible whisky I ever had was a
much-vaunted (and highly-valued) highly-peated single malt
(Talisker?).
    Talisker is not highly peated, though it is much vaunted.  You
may be thinking of Laphroaig, the marmite of whiskies?
I had tried a few single malts Glenmorangie, Glenfiddich and preferred
them to the blends I had grown up with (Bells, Johnny Walker, Ballantine
etc). So a work colleague recommended Lagavulin, I discovered what it
was I didn't like about blends.

Nowadays, I buy Sainsbury's own brand, which is surprisingly good.
Ian Jackson
2020-08-01 09:52:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pancho
[...] The most horrible whisky I ever had was a
much-vaunted (and highly-valued) highly-peated single malt
(Talisker?).
    Talisker is not highly peated, though it is much vaunted.  You
may be thinking of Laphroaig, the marmite of whiskies?
I had tried a few single malts Glenmorangie, Glenfiddich and preferred
them to the blends I had grown up with (Bells, Johnny Walker,
Ballantine etc). So a work colleague recommended Lagavulin, I
discovered what it was I didn't like about blends.
Nowadays, I buy Sainsbury's own brand, which is surprisingly good.
As I sort-of suggested, while it's probably a blend of 57 varieties, if
you're lucky could you occasionally find it's a single malt?
--
Ian
Ian Jackson
2020-08-01 08:07:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
[...] The most horrible whisky I ever had was a
much-vaunted (and highly-valued) highly-peated single malt
(Talisker?).
Talisker is not highly peated, though it is much vaunted. You
may be thinking of Laphroaig, the marmite of whiskies?
Probably.
Post by Andy Walker
The other thing
to beware when drinking any whisky is the strength. There is a sort-of
assumption by some that the stronger the better. In reality, if it's
too strong, then it indeed tastes horrible. It needs to be watered
down, and stronger versions need to be watered down more [which also
makes the cost more reasonable!]. After that, you need to experiment.
But whisky [and whiskey] snobs are as annoying as wine snobs; don't
let other people tell you what to like!
Many years ago, my wife's cousin's husband and I did a comparison
between a cheap bottle of 'cooking whisky' that I had just bought in the
local convenience (and only) store in a village near Aberdeen, and a
bottle of Glenmorangie he had been given.

Neither of us could claim to be whisky buffs, but we both had had a fair
experience of enjoying the occasional wee dram. We both agreed that we
could taste absolutely no difference between the two.

Is it possible that if some of the renowned single malts are surplus to
requirements, they could well be bottled 'as is', and flogged off cheap
to the local supermarkets?
--
Ian
Pamela
2020-07-31 17:46:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
As a noun it is, although one should note that it is a shortened form
of "Scotch whiskey". "Scotch" is also, and originally, an adjective
that is an alternative word for "Scottish", whence the name of the
drink originally was derived.
Have you typed Scotch Whiskey on purpose just to wind up the no
underpants brigade?
Or had you not realised that the word with an "e" in it is used for
Irish Whiskey?
The Scotch stuff is just Whisky, although anyone who drinks that
blended bollocks deserves to get a boot up the trossachs. Although I
don't profess to sampling more than a small percentage of malts, I do
have a taste for Laphroaig.
Does anyone really and truly like whisky? It tastes horrible and fiery to me.
Hear, hear.
The favourite has long been rum for me, though in recent years I have
rather taken to JD and Jim Beam.
I used to drink a lot of cocktails and rum is an excellent spirit for
mixing.
JNugent
2020-08-01 00:05:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by JNugent
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
As a noun it is, although one should note that it is a shortened form
of "Scotch whiskey". "Scotch" is also, and originally, an adjective
that is an alternative word for "Scottish", whence the name of the
drink originally was derived.
Have you typed Scotch Whiskey on purpose just to wind up the no
underpants brigade?
Or had you not realised that the word with an "e" in it is used for
Irish Whiskey?
The Scotch stuff is just Whisky, although anyone who drinks that
blended bollocks deserves to get a boot up the trossachs. Although I
don't profess to sampling more than a small percentage of malts, I do
have a taste for Laphroaig.
Does anyone really and truly like whisky? It tastes horrible and fiery to me.
Hear, hear.
The favourite has long been rum for me, though in recent years I have
rather taken to JD and Jim Beam.
I used to drink a lot of cocktails and rum is an excellent spirit for
mixing.
So true.
abelard
2020-07-31 00:41:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Pamela
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Incubus
Post by Paul Elam
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
"Scotch" is a drink you moron.
As a noun it is, although one should note that it is a shortened form
of "Scotch whiskey". "Scotch" is also, and originally, an adjective
that is an alternative word for "Scottish", whence the name of the
drink originally was derived.
Have you typed Scotch Whiskey on purpose just to wind up the no
underpants brigade?
Or had you not realised that the word with an "e" in it is used for
Irish Whiskey?
The Scotch stuff is just Whisky, although anyone who drinks that blended
bollocks deserves to get a boot up the trossachs. Although I don't
profess to sampling more than a small percentage of malts, I do have a
taste for Laphroaig.
Does anyone really and truly like whisky? It tastes horrible and fiery to me.
don't drink blends...ever

use quality water to moderate it to taste...i use evian

it one of the world's greatest achievments
David Edmunds
2020-07-30 08:15:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Not a total Philistine then
David Edmunds
2020-07-30 08:16:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
You seem to be pleased that Scottish people are dying!
p***@gmail.com
2020-07-30 12:12:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
She's entitled to point the finger south though. The Office of National Statistics reported on excess deaths in Europe in the first six months of 2020, and says England had “the highest levels of excess mortality in Europe for the period as a whole”.

It was the non-socialists wot done it, if you want to relate it to your favourite theme.

Patrick
abelard
2020-07-30 12:36:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
She's entitled to point the finger south though. The Office of National Statistics reported on excess deaths in Europe in the first six months of 2020, and says England had “the highest levels of excess mortality in Europe for the period as a whole”.
'excess deaths' is not genuine corona/sars data
It was the non-socialists wot done it, if you want to relate it to your favourite theme.
scotch new labour eh...

her droning intrusive attention seeking repeat broacasts
are not designed to enlighten or entertain

how she gets votes i know not...is it related to the
stereotyped 'dour'??
Keema's Nan
2020-07-30 13:05:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
She's entitled to point the finger south though. The Office of National
Statistics reported on excess deaths in Europe in the first six months of
2020, and says England had “the highest levels of excess mortality in
Europe for the period as a whole”.
'excess deaths' is not genuine corona/sars data
They are assuming that any rise in mortality figures over the weekly averages
for the last 10 years or more, are entirely due to Covid-19.
Post by abelard
Post by p***@gmail.com
It was the non-socialists wot done it, if you want to relate it to your
favourite theme.
scotch new labour eh...
her droning intrusive attention seeking repeat broacasts
are not designed to enlighten or entertain
She is a megalomaniac.She has no intention of seeking independence for
Scotchland.
Post by abelard
how she gets votes i know not...is it related to the
stereotyped 'dour'??
I wonder if the ONS have decided any rise in Covid-19 infection levels over
the county of Durham is entirely due to the Cummings visit in April?
p***@gmail.com
2020-07-31 18:18:22 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
She's entitled to point the finger south though. The Office of National
Statistics reported on excess deaths in Europe in the first six months of
2020, and says England had “the highest levels of excess mortality in
Europe for the period as a whole”.
'excess deaths' is not genuine corona/sars data
They are assuming that any rise in mortality figures over the weekly averages
for the last 10 years or more, are entirely due to Covid-19.
Not quite, as I understand it. All measures I have seen have been based on the previous 5 year average. They're reporting the numbers being a rise in mortality over a period as a raw data figure, for analysis to determine the extent to which the rise in mortality is due to Covid-19 (and reactions to it). A slightly different take, but important IMV.

The FT model (period since March 20th) evened out at around 65,000 (UK) by mid-June and hasn't moved since.

Patrick
p***@gmail.com
2020-07-31 18:09:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 05:12:16 -0700 (PDT),
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
She's entitled to point the finger south though. The Office of National Statistics reported on excess deaths in Europe in the first six months of 2020, and says England had “the highest levels of excess mortality in Europe for the period as a whole”.
'excess deaths' is not genuine corona/sars data
I don't know what you mean

Patrick
abelard
2020-07-31 19:41:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
On Thu, 30 Jul 2020 05:12:16 -0700 (PDT),
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
She's entitled to point the finger south though. The Office of National Statistics reported on excess deaths in Europe in the first six months of 2020, and says England had “the highest levels of excess mortality in Europe for the period as a whole”.
'excess deaths' is not genuine corona/sars data
I don't know what you mean
i've listed it elsewhere/separately

eg deaths from the usual killers which the nhs has ceased/
reduced service
they may as well sent smallox blankets to the 'care' 'homes'..
they failed to prepare for a sars pndemic as they promised'
in 2003 and were funded for

a lot of the actions of the nhs are self-harm

then there are the increased deaths from poverty as they
undermined 'the economy'

there is no way to link the deaths to sars(corona) other
than by the greatest stretches of imagination and
by human folly
Peter
2020-08-01 09:09:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
In what sense Sturgeon's?
abelard
2020-08-01 12:15:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Peter
Post by abelard
from 8 to 10
In what sense Sturgeon's?
every every day
Loading...